Farrell

[devildavid]

I don't get the point here. Of course there's a pattern. Do other managers do things differently than this?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but just a few days ago everyone was delighted with the performance of our bullpen.

 

There is no pattern. Look at the whole season.

[devildavid]

I don't see any compelling evidence that Farrell manages to a script.

[Slasher9]

So I guess this is the gist of it:

 

If the script is followed and the relievers do their job, the script is good.

If the script is followed and somebody blows their job, the script is bad.

 

no, that's not the gist of it...if you are referring to me.

show me where i said anything about good or bad.

[Slasher9]

How can it be a pattern if it doesn't happen frequently? It only happened 3 times out of the sample you chose. You guys are seeing things that aren't there. Look at every single game for the season, and tell me what percent of the time it has happened and calculate the percentage. It didn't happen at all in April. It happened once in May in a win. So out of 72 games it has happened 4 times. That is not pattern.

 

A more likely explanation is that Farrell, smart manager that he is, has determined after two months who his most effective relievers are and uses them to enhance the chance of winning close games. Not a pattern, but learning from the performances two months into the season. Would you rather have him send out others just to break the pattern that you perceive that really isn't there?

 

Four times out of 72 games is 6%. Not a pattern.

 

One other thing: what is wrong with the "pattern"? The Red Sox have a winning record when the so-called "pattern" occurs.

 

69, 67, 60, 57

4 times in 4 situations. that's 100%. i didnt bother going back any further after lunch because i made my point. Farrell 100% has a script when it comes to 7th, 8th, 9th inning in close games with a lead.

given a rested pen and a lead of 1-3 runs it is 100% certain that JF will:

Kelly 7th

Barnes 8th

Kimbrell 9th

that's a fact. not an alternative fact.

[Spudboy]

Didnt Smith have another setback?

 

Yes. He had to stop throwing.

[Spudboy]

Except there really is no script.

 

That is correct. Farrell uses the words "Game Plan" to describe these things. He reminded everyone of this when Velazquez was pulled at 5 1/3 innings. He said that was the game plan.

[Bellhorn04]

Of course there's a script, a pattern, a game plan or whatever you want to call it. That's the way baseball is now. The average starter goes 6 innings so you need to cover the last 3 with your bullpen. If you're winning but it's close you use your 3 best relievers, assuming they're available. If other s*** happens you handle it accordingly.

 

Every manager does virtually the same thing.

[Slasher9]

Of course there's a script, a pattern, a game plan or whatever you want to call it. That's the way baseball is now. The average starter goes 6 innings so you need to cover the last 3 with your bullpen. If you're winning but it's close you use your 3 best relievers, assuming they're available. If other s*** happens you handle it accordingly.

 

Every manager does virtually the same thing.

 

basically what i've been saying.

[mvp 78]

Of course there's a script, a pattern, a game plan or whatever you want to call it. That's the way baseball is now. The average starter goes 6 innings so you need to cover the last 3 with your bullpen. If you're winning but it's close you use your 3 best relievers, assuming they're available. If other s*** happens you handle it accordingly.

 

Every manager does virtually the same thing.

 

If they are using their 3 best relievers? Why is Barnes pitching the 8th?

[Bellhorn04]

If they are using their 3 best relievers? Why is Barnes pitching the 8th?

 

It's probably time for Barnes and Kelly to swap places. Kelly has pitched better.

[cp176]

Of course there's a script, a pattern, a game plan or whatever you want to call it. That's the way baseball is now. The average starter goes 6 innings so you need to cover the last 3 with your bullpen. If you're winning but it's close you use your 3 best relievers, assuming they're available. If other s*** happens you handle it accordingly.

 

Every manager does virtually the same thing.

 

It is personal for me I guess. It is something that I just don't like. I'm ok with higher expectations for your starters and letting the flow of every game dictate how long any relief pitcher is used. If your 7th inning guy, let's just say Kelly is unhittable during his 7th inning of work, I don't have a problem yarding him out there for a little more even if it means he might need a little rest the next day. I do not think that the over specialization that we are seeing is making the game more enjoyable.

[a700hitter]

Of course there's a script, a pattern, a game plan or whatever you want to call it. That's the way baseball is now. The average starter goes 6 innings so you need to cover the last 3 with your bullpen. If you're winning but it's close you use your 3 best relievers, assuming they're available. If other s*** happens you handle it accordingly.

 

Every manager does virtually the same thing.

Agreed. They all follow a script. It is the easy thing to do.

[a700hitter]

It's probably time for Barnes and Kelly to swap places. Kelly has pitched better.

Again, I agree. They need to swap roles.

[Maxbialystock]

Farrell surprisingly completely outmanaged Matheny in that World Series. I have acknowledged that previously. His use of the pen in that post season was excellent. Maybe Francona learned from him, and Farrell re-learned it from Francona. He certainly forgot how to do it last year as he never did it with Kimbrel.

 

Where is it written that good managers bring their closers in early for 4, 5, and even 6 out saves? Nowhere. I thought Farrell did fine last year, especially in September when the Sox actually made their big run to win the AL East, by keeping Kimbrel for just the 9th inning. And let's not forget that Kimbrel was less reliable last year than he has been this year. And no way, no how can anyone convince me that somehow Francona outmanaged Farrell in the ALDS. The Sox blew that series because Price and Porcello were terrible and Buch wasn't much better. Kimbrel was never a factor in the ALDS.

[Bellhorn04]

Where is it written that good managers bring their closers in early for 4, 5, and even 6 out saves? Nowhere.

 

There are times it should be done, but it has to be done judiciously. Obviously the most frequent use of the tactic comes in the postseason because of the importance of the games and the extra rest permitted by the off-days.

[notin]

basically what i've been saying.

 

But where was it leading? What was your point..

[Kimmi]

Of course there's a script, a pattern, a game plan or whatever you want to call it. That's the way baseball is now. The average starter goes 6 innings so you need to cover the last 3 with your bullpen. If you're winning but it's close you use your 3 best relievers, assuming they're available. If other s*** happens you handle it accordingly.

 

Every manager does virtually the same thing.

 

I agree that there is a 'script'. I think much of that has to do with relievers liking having a set role. Also, much of it has to do with managing for the season and burning out any of the arms.

 

I strongly agree with the idea that a closer should be used in earlier innings if the game calls for it. Wednesday's game was a perfect example. The true save situation occurred in the 8th inning.

 

I have no problem with Barnes starting that inning. But once he walked the first 2 batters, and especially with the 4, 5, and 6 hitters coming up, it's time to bring Kimbrel in. Let Kimbrel get the 3 outs, then worry about the 9th inning when you get there. If Kimbrel can't go a 2nd inning, then bring in somebody else.

 

There is no sense in keeping Kimbrel on the bench for a save situation that may never come.

[Kimmi]

If they are using their 3 best relievers? Why is Barnes pitching the 8th?

 

Prior to that game, Barnes had come into a game in the 8th inning 22 times. The team was 22-0 in those games. The formula is successful.

[S5Dewey]

I agree that there is a 'script'. I think much of that has to do with relievers liking having a set role. Also, much of it has to do with managing for the season and burning out any of the arms.

 

I strongly agree with the idea that a closer should be used in earlier innings if the game calls for it. Wednesday's game was a perfect example. The true save situation occurred in the 8th inning.

 

I have no problem with Barnes starting that inning. But once he walked the first 2 batters, and especially with the 4, 5, and 6 hitters coming up, it's time to bring Kimbrel in. Let Kimbrel get the 3 outs, then worry about the 9th inning when you get there. If Kimbrel can't go a 2nd inning, then bring in somebody else.

 

There is no sense in keeping Kimbrel on the bench for a save situation that may never come.

 

^^ THIS^^

 

Kimbrel should have come in to get the outs in the 8th and then let Kelly takes his chances with the 7-8-9 hitters in the 9th.

[mvp 78]

Prior to that game, Barnes had come into a game in the 8th inning 22 times. The team was 22-0 in those games. The formula is successful.

 

Well, even the dumbest of managerial moves only affects the outcome .01% of the time.

 

He also only has 12 holds out of those 22 times.

[Bellhorn04]

^^ THIS^^

 

Kimbrel should have come in to get the outs in the 8th and then let Kelly takes his chances with the 7-8-9 hitters in the 9th.

 

Kelly was gone.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, even the dumbest of managerial moves only affects the outcome .01% of the time.

 

Yes, I would like to hear Kimmi's comments on this because it's kind of central to this whole issue about whether the manager has any impact or not.

[mvp 78]

For me, it's not even about the results. I just think that if you have a guy that can pump it in at 100mph, that he should be the 8th inning guy, not the 7th inning guy.

[cp176]

For me, it's not even about the results. I just think that if you have a guy that can pump it in at 100mph, that he should be the 8th inning guy, not the 7th inning guy.

 

Maybe he could be a 7th and an 8th inning guy. How about a pre-closer guy who can get the job done as needed. Maybe some games he pitches just in the 7th and some days the 8th. Kelly looks like he could be that guy.

[a700hitter]

Maybe he could be a 7th and an 8th inning guy. How about a pre-closer guy who can get the job done as needed. Maybe some games he pitches just in the 7th and some days the 8th. Kelly looks like he could be that guy.

if Kelly is throwing strikes, I would try to get 2 innings out of him in each outing.

[Slasher9]

But where was it leading? What was your point..

 

it was leading right here. as every post on the interweb does.....

[Maxbialystock]

^^ THIS^^

 

Kimbrel should have come in to get the outs in the 8th and then let Kelly takes his chances with the 7-8-9 hitters in the 9th.

 

I believe Kelly had already pitched in the 7th, getting 2 outs. Indeed, he got sent in because Pomeranz had 1 or 2 guys on base in the 7th.

[Maxbialystock]

I think a valid case can be made for using Kelly and Kimbrel more in the final KC game, but that does not mean there was no case for using the guys who did go out there, especially when using those guys--and not over-relying on Kelly and Kimbrel--had been working like gang busters.

 

So herewith a tiny factoid. Kelly the wunderkind was actually struggling in that game. He came in with 1 out and 2 men on and got the fly out, then walked a guy, and finally got the final out on a very hard hit ball to right field.

 

We already know what Barnes and Scott did--they stunk it up. So that's three bullpen regulars, including one of our two bullpen aces, who were ineffective or barely effective Wednesday night.

 

Given the above, I find it very hard to blame Wed night's debacle on the manager when it seems obvious that the bullpen just had a bad night, and by that I mean 3 straight guys, all three with normal, key roles in the late innings who overall have been successful this year.

[a700hitter]

I think a valid case can be made for using Kelly and Kimbrel more in the final KC game, but that does not mean there was no case for using the guys who did go out there, especially when using those guys--and not over-relying on Kelly and Kimbrel--had been working like gang busters.

 

So herewith a tiny factoid. Kelly the wunderkind was actually struggling in that game. He came in with 1 out and 2 men on and got the fly out, then walked a guy, and finally got the final out on a very hard hit ball to right field.

 

We already know what Barnes and Scott did--they stunk it up. So that's three bullpen regulars, including one of our two bullpen aces, who were ineffective or barely effective Wednesday night.

 

Given the above, I find it very hard to blame Wed night's debacle on the manager when it seems obvious that the bullpen just had a bad night, and by that I mean 3 straight guys, all three with normal, key roles in the late innings who overall have been successful this year.

I don't think anyone made that case with regard to the last game. The discussion has been centered around bullpen roles.

[Maxbialystock]

I don't think anyone made that case with regard to the last game. The discussion has been centered around bullpen roles.

 

My mistake. Thanks for clarifying. I think it's probably good to have "roles," but also that sometimes the manager needs to be flexible based on game situations.